I've had a fortnight of not really wanting to blog for some reason. I promised mageshmagi this blog entry on Mercedes and Schumacher's underperformances before I went on unintended hiatus.

First of all, it was always going to be difficult for Mercedes to match its precedescor's antics. Brawn managed to win the one driver's and constructor's title it entered with considerable aplomb. Nonetheless, it had to do so with an unusual resource distribution. When the car was designed in mid-2008, money was practically falling from the sky, but by the time it hit the track the primary funding source (Honda) had reduced dramatically. It funded the season's running costs (albeit only for a much smaller operation than the one it had been when the team was called Honda), but did not fund  the creation of the 2010 challenger. Therefore the 2010 car was hamstrung by a serious lack of funds.

Then Ross Brawn made an intelligent move. By hiring Nico Rosberg, he gained a driver who is intelligent and ready to take a step up from his previous team - the plucky but gracefully-declining Williams. He'd been team leader there for two seasons and proved to be a good team leader for Mercedes.

That wasn't the plan. The plan had been for Rosberg to ably back up a seven-time world champion who would break all records and be a legendary touchstone for all at Mercedes - Michael Schumacher. He was duly hired, to the astonishment of most of the F1 community. He said the right things (though I was somewhat worried that how he said them didn't match how he'd said them before) and testing wasn't terrible for him.

Just as well it wasn't terrible for him because it was quite clear that the Mercedes W01 had suffered for its lack of development funding.  It wasn't a dominating influence or even on the pace of the likes of Red Bull. This was going to be a tough season. The engine was beautifully fast but the chassis didn't respond well to its tyres. Michael and Nico (along with Felipe Massa at Ferrari) frequently noted that the front tyres did not support their driving styles, which tend to involve quite hard braking.

Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello, who'd been at Brawn in 2009, both have much gentler braking styles and would have suited the Mercedes W01 better. However, neither of them were options for Mercedes. Jenson wanted a fresh challenge and Rubens had been harbouring a desire to race for Williams for quite a while. Still, without a hard-braking driver to ask for tips during development, it is easy to see why this significant flaw appeared in Mercedes' first car.

What is more difficult to understand is why the 2011 car met a similar fate. After all, Felipe's 2011 Ferrari is much more to his liking. There was a major reshuffle in the factory staff towards the end of 2010, which delayed completion of the W02. There was also a decision made to start with a basic car and upgrade it a lot as soon as possible, even though that didn't really work for them in 2010 either. An upgrade can fix many things but not a fundamental weakness in the car.

Due to that philosophy, we may see considerable improvement across the season. Upgrades can fix minor problems. Even though the problems with the Mercedes' tendency to consume tyres rapidly do not constitute "minor", things can be done to reduce that flaw and fix less noticeable difficulties such as a lack of downforce compared to Ferrari and Red Bull. The engine's still strong (unsurprising due to engine sorbet regulations) but it's not enough.

Michael Schumacher does not seem to have adapted to being in an imperfect car very well. He tends to make more mistakes in that situation than we were accustomed to seeing in his previous time in F1. Hence he tends to hit cars instead of passing them, impairing his performances in an already non-optimised car. He's also started to show tendencies towards crumbling in whichever qualifying session is his last one in a given day. This is the very effect he used to trigger in other people back in 2006. It's the sign of a driver that, for all his determination, diligence and innate skill, has gone from the hunted to the hunter - and vastly preferred being the hunted.

If Michael ever wants to see a podium again, let alone a win, he needs to re-assume the mentality of the hunted - the one who leads and is forever trying to escape, willing to experiment to improve but ever holding their nerve while doing so. Perhaps Mercedes may benefit from a little of that too, but mostly it just needs to put more emphasis on getting the car right the first time.

Warning! Long entry alert!

I've been thinking what to write for this for most of the week. Normally F1 tackles politics by avoiding it with a 10-foot bargepole; Bernie focuses on the almighty [insert currency here] and the FIA is apolitical by statute.

The events of the past week in the Middle East have prevented the possibility of solution through ignorance.

First of all, some background. The chain of events that led to the current FCO travel advice not to go to Bahrain unless strictly necessary started in December 2010 over in Tunisia. The recession, poor living conditions, corruption and dissatisfaction with a lack of political freedoms resulted in a population ripe for turning into a mob.

The eventual spark that ignited the fire of rebelliousness was caused by a dispute over a vegetable cart licence. Cart owner Mohamed Bouazizi, after apparently being assaulted by a police officer and unsuccessfully attempting to get the local police station to hear his complaint, set himself on fire in protest. The people, for the most part, sided with the cart owner. Initial protests concerning his treatment by the police were met with tear gas, obstructionism and a "quasi-curfew".

The people increased their demands in response, eventually demanding the removal from government of the entire ruling party (RCD) and release of political prisoners. Even a reformation of the government with a reduced number of RCD members did nothing to quell the uprising. Eventually the army sided with the protesters and mass resignations followed.

This Sidi Bouzid Revolt triggered a chain reaction across the Middle East. Most of the world is currently in recession, but many if not most countries in the Middle East are characterised with various types of authoritarian regime. While the majority have democratic layers, there have been as many ways of implementing them as there are countries.

Authoritarian regimes tend to be associated with corruption and generate nations of layered societies.As Frank Herbert correctly noted, "The layered society is an invitation to violence". This is because each layer tends to envy, covet and/or despise the other layers, resulting in rampant power abuse. In turn, a desire is created to take what rightfully belongs to others, which remains undisclosed and unsatisfied due to fear of said power abuse and the lack of incentive for the powerful to enable uncontrolled social movement.

The countries of the Middle East have shared a bond with one another since Islam first united their common ideologies. They have also experienced common changes that have made them more vulnerable to a tidal change in popular thinking. The average population has slowly become younger, therefore less likely to think conservatively or in accord with the opinions of their elders. They have been typically better-educated than before; in many of the Middle Eastern countries, agriculture has become less important as more highly-skilled services such as banking and business administration have increased in importance.

Oil, which has slowed the transition from agriculture to service-based industry, is becoming less important as it is increasingly clear the resource is finite. Many of the countries which had oil have diversified successfully, but it has broadened horizons.

Most importantly, many people are engaging with the internet and social media - which are proving more difficult to censor than more traditional communication channels. Newspapers, broadcast channels and even static web sites can easily be influenced by rulers in their home nation should they be so inclined. Trying to influence thousands or even millions of individual connections and accounts across multiple networks, many of which aren't even in the Middle East, has proven vastly more complicated.

The reduced censorship has not only emboldened people but provided easier access in materials on how to voice their complaints. Non-violent manuals easily downloadable (PDF) from the internet have contributed to the ability of protest organisers to make their protests effective. People who have been involved in previous protests can share their expertise.

Furthermore, it is easier for the people to give direct accounts of what they believe to the world and for the world to answer back. Most of the traffic on social networks consists of spam, banter and matters of relatively minor importance (in approximately that order). However, it is also possible for a large number of people to give the same message to those involved in political strife. It reminds those people that the world is watching. It can help people remember that those people have standards and thus utilise peer pressure to modify behaviour. It can demonstrate the failure of censorship and the politics of fear. It can even encourage normally-apathetic people to engage with the issues of the day, thus increasing pressure on the governments not directly involved to state their stance and bring their great powers to bear.

All this provided a highly unstable backdrop; the governments of many Middle Eastern countries simply hadn't adapted to the changes enforced by the passing of time. Protest dominoes suddenly looked likely, just as Gdańsk had become the trigger for the downfall of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and pan-European revolts in the 1840s started with the Chartists in Britain.

Egypt was the next to feel the wrath of a dissatisfied people. Change happened over a period of weeks, as various measures were tried and found wanting by a population wanting wholesale regime change rather than just dismissing the odd minister.

In fact, there had been resistance for years but it took the Tunisian experience to catalyse it into the violent clashes, mass striking and constant demonstrating that eventually ensued. By February 11, even President Mubarak had seen the writing on the wall and resigned. Since then, things appear to have stayed calm (touch wood) pending discussions on how to ensure the reduced repression and application of a stronger democratic structure demanded by the population. Events have demonstrated that the old regimes cannot be replaced like for like and that something new is needed - and not just in Egypt.

15 other countries in the Arab world have featured protests - or more than protests - since Tunisia's revolution began. These had been going on for six weeks before the F1 world noticed, for Bahrain looked to be among the most stable of the Arab nations.

Bahrain has a prosperous economy and has had democratic institutions in its constitution for a decade. The trouble was that many people, particularly among the Shia, had not had their fortunes uplifted in line with those of their nation and the institutions are easily overruled by the King and other members of the royal family. The protestors tried to keep the sectarianism out of the equation but the government still saw a sectarian threat, which increased tensions. There were also complaints about the number of political prisoners in Bahrain. The success of the Egyptian revolt in particular inspired the dissatisfied to action.

The King paid 1000 Bahraini dinars (£615.10) to every citizen in the country on February 14, the 10-year anniversary of the constitution that should have ensured the democratic institutions were powerful. It is rumoured that this was an attempt to head off the demonstrations. If so, it failed. On February 14, there was a mass occupation of the streets across Bahrain. One protester died, but it was his funeral next day that turned the situation from a purely political problem to one that involved the motorsport community.

Police fired at the funeral procession, killing one person, injuring 25 and pushing thousands into believing the powers-that-be had abandoned them. It was into the resulting bloodstained fury that the GP2 Asia circus entered the country. Will Buxton vividly described the situation in the country on the relatively quiet day before first practise was due to begin. The reports from others indicated that increasing amounts of violence were being employed by the police and army, a tactic which never helps calmness of people or encourage stability of government. The official position attempted to reassure foreigners that they were still safe in Bahrain, but increasingly people were having doubts.

Practise itself started with the ART and iSport teams playing football against each other because the medical staff due to support the race's requirements were recalled to Manama to assist the injured. The riot police had started using live bullets in addition to the tear gas and batons used previously. Clearly, it was dangerous for the GP2 Asia people to remain in Manama and there was no prospect of getting the medical staff back in time to run the race anyway. This was sufficient reason for the FIA's Bahrain branch to cancel the race, using Article 1.3 of Appendix O of the International Sporting Code:

"Recommendations regarding the number of personnel should be complied with throughout the event; if it is not possible... ...the programme of the event should be rearranged".

The press release was rather less verbose, but it posed a clear message to F1. If Bahrain could not safely host a GP2 race, what chance a F1 test two weeks later - or indeed the F1 race a week after that? Many people on the internet were arguing against going to Bahrain, and not because of the complaints of previous years concerning low overtaking opportunities and general blandness. The violence in the region is ongoing, despite the Crown Prince's pleas for calm and orders for the army to leave Manama having resulted in an entire day without bloodshed.

Insurance for many people in the F1 paddock is currently invalid with respect to travel to Bahrain, and is likely to remain so unless and until the various international travel advisers are assured the current peace is permanent. Sponsors may be reluctant to associate themselves with the country for the time being. Nick Heidfeld, one of the more thoughtful drivers on the F1 grid, has urged sensitivity - a level-headed approach, but is there time between now and the point where visa applications and freight transportation demand an answer?

How can F1 justify sending its people into a country where there is probable danger over and above the inherent danger of racing at over 200 mph? What ethical responsibilities does the sport have, given that ethical expectations have changed across the world as well as in the Middle East? Politically, what can - or should - F1 do to prevent itself from facing similar problems in future? Oh, and is there anything F1's own psuedopolitical structures can learn from the lessons of the Middle East?

I hope to answer these in my next blog entry. Until then, I leave you with a link to a comment I made on F1 Fanatic that may convince you that F1 - whatever it does - cannot be truly apolitical about this.

Force India's performance in testing this week has been remarkable. It's difficult to draw any definite conclusions because there are only 4 teams using 2010 machinery at this time (the other three are McLaren, Virgin and Hispania). However, of those four one would normally expect McLaren to be the fastest, given that their team was second in the championship and the others didn't manage to be in the top 6. Also, there could be some variance concerning how much technologies such as the F-duct and adjustable front wing were being used. Such technologies are easy to switch on and off but cannot be used on 2011 cars.

Despite the above, Force India have had the fastest overall time at all three lunch-times so far. On Monday, despite stopping testing some time before the end of the day, Nico Hulkenburg and Paul di Resta finished Monday second and fourth, Paul then finished third yesterday and as I type Adrian Sutil is still first on the timesheet (Robert Kubica only went faster than him an hour-and-a-quarter before the end of the test - as I started typing the next paragraph down). There's only been one small stoppage (di Resta lost some time at the start of Tuesday) and Force India is close to having 300 laps under its belt. In short, Force India has outperformed even McLaren.

The running is primarily helping Force India understand the tyres better; the new Pirellis are understood to be very high-wearing, so managing that wear will be critical in the success of any team this year. The new VJM-04, due to be launched next week, should give a true barometer of how much slower a 2011 car should be than its 2010 equivalent.

At long last, the LCMBP 2010 Season Review Podcast is available at last.fm for download. I will edit this entry later to add a transcript.

While you're wearing your headphones, please also take the time to listen to the Sidepodcast 2010 Season Review Megamix, where selected highlights can be heard alongside 18 other knowledgeable people's contributions.

Warning! Very long entry alert!

I recently cross-posted Re-Analysing the Championship Duel from the old wiki to here, which attempted to calculate what would have happened to the 2008 championship if the drivers had been unaffected by such vagaries as mechanical failures, pit-stop mess-ups and stewarding silliness.

2009 didn't really invite that sort of analysis because Jenson Button looked like the deserving champion for most of the year, only getting seriously challenged in a mid-season wobble that temporarily brought Rubens Barrichello and both Red Bull drivers into the championship fight.

However, 2010 was a very complicated season. It would be interesting to see how, with luck somewhat more equal, it would have panned out. How much of an effect did Red Bull's reliability had? Would Alonso have been as much of a contender if the FIA hadn't acted as it did? Did luck make any difference at all to the McLaren duo?

Firstly, a definition of “luck” for the purposes of this entry:

• mechanical failures are considered unlucky unless they were demonstrably caused by bad driving. Any crash resulting from mechanical failure is also luck. This is meant to be a driver's title we're analysing today...

• crashes obviously caused by another driver(s). Nobody can legislate for those.

• slow pit stops. The driver is not in a position to do anything about these.

• pit stops which go wrong in other ways, provided the reason is not the driver making a mistake. This highly intricate area of racing involves some driver skill, but is largely team-dependent.

• stewarding decisions which are inconsistent with precedent and/or evidence presented. What can a driver do about poor judicial decisions?

• Penalty-worthy behaviour by other drivers affecting the driver being analysed's performance. Luck isn't always targeted at the championship contender directly...

• obvious penalty-worthy driving which garners no interest from the stewards is considered lucky if brought to the attention of the viewing public. (Penalty-worthy driving missed by everyone is the sort of fortune that cannot be analysed in this manner).

Things which are not considered “luck” for the purposes of this entry:

• mechanical failures caused by contact with any element of trackside furniture. If you treat the car badly, it will break down on you...

• crashes obviously caused by the driver being analysed, or only involved that driver because an obvious mistake was made by him. In F1, a certain standard of driving is expected.

• crashes which are racing incidents. It's difficult to tell who is to blame and its exclusion from “luck” is marginal, but one of the skills of being a F1 driver is avoiding this sort of incident, or at least making sure such involvement doesn't end their race.

• Pit stops which go wrong because the driver made an error (to name the three to come to mind first, missing the pit box, outbraked/stopped seriously short of the pit box or leaves the pits without being given the signal to do so). Yes, pit stops are difficult, but mastering the driving part of them is one of the key skills of a driver.

• Penalties which are earned and handed out in the correct manner.

• Incidents where ambiguity over whether a type of incident merits a penalty exists in precedent; the stewards are given the benefit of the doubt (whether that was for or against a penalty) unless it is clear a penalty was merited but not given or vice versa.

• Being stuck behind another driver (unless that driver breached the blue flag rule). Overtaking is a driver skill usually necessary to take titles.

• Poor strategy. Not because a driver is necessarily responsible for these but because the consequences tend to be too large to analyse properly.

• Differences in driving “if only” some piece of luck had/had not happened. It's tough, but it's beyond pure analytical tools to suggest precisely how being treated properly by fate would have affected a driver's performance. The fans of a given driver are better placed to answer that sort of question.

I will go through this analysis race-by-race. The analysis is formatted with the cumulative points after each race title. It will be in the format (VET: x WEB: y ALO: z HAM: a BUT: b), with three-letter abbreviations of each driver's surname used to avoid confusion. At Germany and subsequent races, there is an oblique sign between two figures for each driver, depending on which route the FIA had taken in removing the "luck" of blatant team orders which, despite a guilty verdict, received no sporting penalty and should.

The first number by each driver underneath the race titles is the number of points actually scored in that race. After that, there is a modifier to take into account the effects of mechanical failures, pit-stop gremlins, bad stewarding and the effects of all these on drivers who would otherwise have finished in a position affecting their points scores. An explanation of all modifiers is given in brackets.

Reminder (primarily to self because even now I'm apt to forget what positions are worth in new money): the current points-scoring system goes 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 for 1^st through to 10^th.

I calculate the following fortune-correction for Vettel, Webber, Alonso, Hamilton and Button:

Bahrain (VET: 25 WEB: 4 ALO: 18 HAM: 12 BUT: 6)

Vettel: 12 + 13 = 25 (spark plug problem slowed him down a lot)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (uneventful race)

Alonso: 25 – 7 = 18 (Vettel slowed due to car trouble)

Hamilton:  15 – 3 = 12 (Vettel slowed due to car trouble)

Button: 6 + 0 = 6 (uneventful race)

Australia (VET: 50 WEB: 10 ALO: 24 HAM: 27 BUT: 24)

Vettel: DNF + 25 = 25 (brake failure while leading)

Webber: 2 + 6 = 8 (hit by Hamilton twice, Vettel's brakes denied win)

Alonso: 12 - 6 = 6 (clouted by Button, Vettel's brakes denied win, Webber and Hamilton would have been ahead had they been more fortunate concerning crashes)

Hamilton: 8 + 7 = 15 (hit Webber through mechanical failure, hit Webber second time through own fault, Vettel's brakes denied win)

Button: 25 - 7 = 18 (clouted Alonso and Schumacher, surprised pits, Vettel's brakes denied win)

Malaysia (VET: 75 WEB: 35 ALO: 24 HAM: 35 BUT: 26)

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (uneventful victory)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 25 (uneventful victory)

Alonso: 13/DNF + 0 = 0 (bad quali down to poor strategy, engine failed passing Button)

Hamilton: 8 + 0 = 8 (bad quali down to poor strategy)

Button: 4 - 2 = 2 (bad quali down to poor strategy, Alonso would have beaten him had engine held)

China (VET: 81 WEB: 39 ALO: 39 HAM: 70 BUT: 36)

Vettel: 6 + 0 = 6 (racing incident with Hamilton, helped force Hamilton wide but possibly caused by Button)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (forced off-track by Hamilton was a third party (Button's fault); ultimately only Button gained)

Alonso: 12 + 3 = 15 (jump-start own fault, but had Button been penalised correctly for Safety Car, a place would have been gained)

Hamilton: 18 + 7 = 25 (racing accident with Vettel, took to grass to avoid hitting Button and Vettel; would have won if Button penalised correctly)

Button: 25 - 15 = 10 (Safety Car bunching-up done erratically and should have been penalised)

Spain (VET: 91 WEB: 64 ALO: 57 HAM: 85 BUT: 44)

Vettel: 12 – 2 = 10 (Hamilton would have finished ahead without puncture)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Alonso: 18 + 0 = 18 (smooth second)

Hamilton: 14/DNF + 15 = 15 (crash due to puncture while 3rd)

Button: 10 - 2 = 8 (Hamilton would have finished ahead without puncture)

Monaco (VET: 109 WEB: 89 ALO: 65 HAM: 95 BUT: 50)

Vettel: 18 + 0 = 18 (straighforward second)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straighforward victory)

Alonso: 8 + 0 = 8 (poor quali own fault)

Hamilton: 10 + 0 = 10 (uneventful fifth)

Button: DNF + 6 = 6 (blocked cooling denies a finish; was behind Schumacher at the time)

Turkey (VET: 109 WEB: 114 ALO: 69 HAM: 113 BUT: 65)

Vettel: DNF + 0 = 0 (crash own fault)

Webber: 15 + 10 = 25 (hit by Vettel, losing victory)

Alonso: 4 + 0 = 4 (nothing done in the race fits the definition of “luck” given)

Hamilton: 25 – 7 = 18 (Webber would have won if Vettel hadn't hit him)

Button: 18 – 3 = 15 (Webber would have won if Vettel hadn't hit him)

Canada (VET: 119 WEB: 132 ALO: 81 HAM: 128 BUT: 80)

Vettel: 12 – 2 = 10 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

Webber: 10 + 8 = 18 (5-place gearbox penalty; originally qualified behind Hamilton)

Alonso: 15 – 3 = 12 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

Hamilton: 25 + 0 = 25 (unchallengable victory)

Button: 18 – 3 = 15 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

Europe (VET: 144 WEB: 132 ALO: 85 HAM: 146 BUT: 90)

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (hit Hamilton)

Webber: DNF + 0 = 0 (crash due to misjudgement)

Alonso: 4 + 0 = 4 (unaffected by chaos round him)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 18 (hit by Vettel but didn't lose places, overtaking Safety Car own fault)

Button: 15 - 5 = 10 (should have received a 20s penalty for being too quick under the Safety Car according to Article 16, not 5s)

Britain (VET: 159 WEB: 157 ALO: 85 HAM: 164 BUT: 100)

Vettel: 6 + 9 = 15 (puncture due to light clash with Hamilton)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Alonso: 0 + 0 = 0 (off own mistake, then pushed off due to Kubica and penalised, hit Liuzzi to get puncture. The bad luck cost him 2 places, but not enough to return Fernando to the points)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 0 (uneventful second)

Button: 12 - 2 = 10 (hit Vettel lightly; Vettel would have finished ahead had it not been for the puncture)

Germany (VET: 174/177 WEB: 165/167 ALO: 103/85 HAM: 176/179 BUT: 110/112)

Vettel: 15 + 0 = 15/18 (boring third)

Webber: 8 + 0 = 8/10 (uneventful sixth)

Alonso: 25 - 7 = 18/0 (only passed Massa through team orders. Correct penalty unclear but pass should not have happened. Therefore 2 numbers given; one if the pass had been reversed and the other if Alonso had been disqualified as the stewards were entitled to do.)

Hamilton: 12 + 0 = 12/15 (uneventful fourth)

Button: 10 + 0 = 10/12 (straightforward fifth)

Hungary (VET: 182/185 WEB: 190/192 ALO: 121/103 HAM: 191/194 BUT: 114/116)

Vettel: 15 - 7 = 8 (crossed grass verge in pitlane entry and should have been penalised; exceeding maximum gap to Safety Car own fault)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (luck had nothing to do with victory)

Alonso: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Hamilton: DNF + 15 = 15 (gearbox failure; was behind Alonso at the time)

Button: 4 + 0 = 4 (quiet eighth)

Belgium (VET: 182/185 WEB: 208/210 ALO: 121/103 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 129/131)

Vettel: 0 + 0 = 0 (collisions with Button and Liuzzi own fault)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Alonso: DNF + 0 = 0 (T-boned by Barrichello, but walloped barrier by himself later)

Hamilton: 25 + 0 = 25 (win nothing to do with luck)

Button: DNF + 15 = 15 (blameless in collision with Vettel; ahead of Kubica at the time)

Italy (VET: 194/197 WEB: 218/220 ALO: 146/128 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 147/149)

Vettel: 12 + 0 = 12 (engine issue didn't seem to affect him in the long run)

Webber: 8 + 2 = 10 (held up by Hulkenburg, who should have been penalised for chicane-cutting and wasn't)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward win)

Hamilton: DNF + 0 = 0 (caused own crash)

Button: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Singapore (VET: 212/215 WEB: 233/235 ALO: 171/153 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 159/161)

Vettel: 18 + 0 = 18 (lost no places when anti-stall kicked in during the pitstop)

Webber: 15 + 0 = 15 (racing incident with Hamilton)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (easy win)

Hamilton: DNF + 0 = 0 (racing incident colliding with Webber)

Button: 12 + 0 = 12 (quiet 4th)

Japan (VET: 237/240 WEB: 251/253 ALO: 183/165 HAM: 231/234 BUT: 167/171)

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward win)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (quiet second)

Alonso: 15 – 3 = 12 (Hamilton would have beaten him without the gearbox penalty)

Hamilton: 10 + 5 = 15 (5-place grid drop; qualified behind Webber)

Button: 12 – 2 = 10 (Hamilton would have beaten him without the gearbox penalty)

Korea (VET: 255/258 WEB: 251/253 ALO: 198/180 HAM: 246/249 BUT: 167/171)

Vettel: DNF + 18 = 18 (Alonso would have beaten him if it weren't for a stuck wheel nut, but ahead of everyone else when engine blew)

Webber: DNF + 0 = 0 (crashed by himself)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (stuck wheel nut only reason wasn't ahead of Vettel when Sebastian's engine blew)

Hamilton: 18 – 3 = 15 (Vettel's engine blew)

Button: 0 - 0 (Vettel's engine blew, but Button was already out of the points by then)

Brazil (VET: 280/283 WEB: 269/271 ALO: 213/192 HAM: 258/261 BUT: 177/179)

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (luck didn't affect any of the championship contenders this race)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (ditto)

Alonso: 15 + 0 = 15 (ditto)

Hamilton: 12 + 0 = 12 (ditto)

Button: 10 + 0 = 10 (ditto)

Abu Dhabi (VET: 305/308 WEB: 273/275 ALO: 219/198 HAM: 276/279 BUT: 193/195)

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (hit barrier that necessitated tyre change through own error)

Alonso: 6 + 0 = 6 (poor strategy outside scope of analysis)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Button: 15 + 0 = 15 (uneventful third)

I will complete the analysis (and correct this one if need be) tomorrow.

* - Until someone comes up with a proper word for the five-man equivalent of “duel”, this will have to do.